5221. Adulteration, aad Mais^i'ais.d.iiig of sweet cider. IT. S. * * * v.?
William. H. Bai-rett (Barrett & Barrett). Plea of not grisilty. Tried?
to the comrt. Findixtgr of guilty. Fine, $4<* and costs. (F. & D. No.?
7601.    I. S. Nos. 11548-1, 11552-1.)
On September 27, 1918, the United States attorney for the Northern District?
of Illinois, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the?
District Court of the United States for said district an information against?
William H. Barrett, trading as Barrett & Barrett, Chicago, 111., alleging ship??
ment by said defendant, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, on or about?
January SI, 1916, and February 28, 1916, from the State of Illinois into the?
State of Iowa, of quantities of sweet cider which was adulterated and nais-?
branded. The first shipment was labeled in part: " Barrett & Barrett, Chi??
cago, York State New Sweet Cider." The second shipment was labeled in part:?
"Barrett & Barrett New Sweet Cider Chicago."
Analysis of a sample of the article from each shipment, by the Bureau of?
Chemistry of this department, showed the article to contain added sugar and?
added water.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the information for the reason that?
certain substances, to wit, water and sugar, had been mixed and packed with?
the article so as to lower, reduce, and injuriously affect its quality and strength;?
and had been substituted in part for sweet cider, which the article purported to-?
be.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statement, to wit, "Sweet?
Cider," borne on the half barrels containing the article, regarding it and the?
ingredients and substances contained therein, was false and misleading in that?
it falsely represented that said article was pure sweet cider, whereas, in truth?
and in fact, said article was not pure sweet cider, but was an imitation product,?
to wit, a mixture consisting of cider, added water, and sugar; for the further?
reason that the article was an imitation of, and was offered for sale under the?
distinctive name of another article, to wit, sweet cider; and for the further?
reason that it wTas labeled, " Sweet Cider," so as to deceive and mislead pur??
chasers into the belief that it was sweet cider, whereas, in truth and in fact, it?
was not, but was an imitation product, to wit, a mixture consisting of cider,?
added water, and sugar.
On October 11, 1916, the defendant entered a plea of not guilty to the infor??
mation. On October 23, 1916, the case came on to be heard, and a jury having?
been waived, was tried by the court. After submission of evidence and argu??
ments by counsel, a finding of guilty was made by the court, and a fine of $40?
and costs was imposed.
CASL VSOOMAN, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
N. J. 5201-5250.]      SERVICE AJS1> BEGULATGBY ANETOUlSrOEMEFTS.	25S